Drug Gang Violence Kills Hundreds Of Mexicans In Past Week

[fluffy666]

You think that's a good thing? If so, why?

No.. I think drugs should be legalised (with appropriate laws on driving, operating heavy machinery and trading other people's money under the influence), with taxes levied ring fenced for addiction treatment/emergency care . I'm sure there would still be problems, and there are some things you might not want to legalise at all (crack?), but you couldn't make things much worse..

[fluffy666]

Source: Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C (March 2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–53.

I'm surprised how far up the physical scale Heroin is.. I suspect that medical heroin under prescription would come a long way to the left.

[Guest X-QUORK]

No.. I think drugs should be legalised (with appropriate laws on driving, operating heavy machinery and trading other people's money under the influence), with taxes levied ring fenced for addiction treatment/emergency care . I'm sure there would still be problems, and there are some things you might not want to legalise at all (crack?), but you couldn't make things much worse..

(My bold) Drugs and alcohol misuse should already be covered by most employment contracts I suspect.

[Guest Noodle]

Back off farang.

Oooo . . . that hurt.

[yellerkat]

I'm surprised how far up the physical scale Heroin is.. I suspect that medical heroin under prescription would come a long way to the left.

Yep, most of it's probably cut with something not too healthy.

Anyway wasn't Queen Victoria a laudanum junky?

[ccc]

I'm surprised how far up the physical scale Heroin is.. I suspect that medical heroin under prescription would come a long way to the left.

I was thinking that too. I saw a programme a while back that was saying how un-damaging herion actually was to the body. Hence it's use in almost every area of every Health service in the entire World.

It is when you get addicted to it that the other health issues result. So I don't think it is necessarily a damaging drug on it's own. If you use that logic then alcohol should be as far right as it is possible to go. Physical harm and alcohol go hand in hand, both directly and indirectly. I think we all know that.

[Guest X-QUORK]

I was thinking that too. I saw a programme a while back that was saying how un-damaging herion actually was to the body. Hence it's use in almost every area of every Health service in the entire World.

It is when you get addicted to it that the other health issues result. So I don't think it is necessarily a damaging drug on it's own. If you use that logic then alcohol should be as far right as it is possible to go. Physical harm and alcohol go hand in hand, both directly and indirectly. I think we all know that.

Before you write the chart off, be advised that it's been put together by two eminent scientists in the field. I suspect they're referring to "street heroin" rather than medical grade stuff, however, even then the stuff can have unpleasant side effects - blocking up your bowels for a starter (hardly lethal though, I'll give you that).

Edit: Shocking grammatical error.

[I_Claudius]

Before you right the chart off, be advised that it's been put together by two eminent scientists in the field. I suspect they're referring to "street heroin" rather than medical grade stuff, however, even then the stuff can have unpleasant side effects - blocking up your bowels for a starter (hardly lethal though, I'll give you that).

+1

I'd assume the chart would be based on habitual 'recreational' use rather than monitored medical usage.

[AThirdWay]

No, I don't care to.

Didn't think so.

As posted by that well known pot-head X-Q, nobody is going to die smoking hash. I'm willing to bet a few have died while traffic-ing it though. But cannabis is not what I would consider a 'dangerous' drug.

While I support the legalisation of all drugs (we all know that drug use is widespread, best to control the supply imo), the risks are not negligable. E's, coke, smack, even the recently banned bubbles have killed. Whether these deaths globally out-number the murders committed by the organisations involved in their supply... well lets just say I'm not convinced.

[Guest X-QUORK]

As posted by that well known pot-head X-Q

Not sure if that was a dig or not?

Boozehead.

[I_Claudius]

England and Wales

The following represent the ONS data of the total number of deaths from drug use involving the following drugs in England and Wales from 2000 to 2004 which vary as indicated. The figures are based on the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision - ICD 9 (from 2001, cause of death is coded to ICD-10) -No differentiation is made as to whether the underlying cause of death was drug dependence, accidental poisoning/overdose, related to the drug use or whether one or more drug was implicated - resulting possibly in some double-counting.

Table 1

Drug-related deaths in England and Wales 2000 to 2004

Cocaine 575

Amphetamine 384

Ecstasy 227

Solvents 246

Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 4,976

Alcohol 25,000 - 200,000 approx.

Tobacco half a million approx (UK - [1]

I doubt there will ever be a method to prove one way or another but I'd be surprised if more deaths weren't caused by the trafficking and illegality of drugs than by the consumption (made far more dangerous by it's illicit nature)

[Sledgehead]

It is when you get addicted to it that the other health issues result.

Indeed if the chart , which is a correlation chart for harm and dependency, shows anything that's it: the more dependency a drug is likely to engender, the more harm it is likely to do.

In other words, craving is bad for you. You can include cakes, chocolate and sausages in that too, if they are your poison. Sex also (but only as a result of carelessness).

On the other hand, blanket boredom results in depression.

Life. <sigh>

[Guest X-QUORK]

(It even seems naively that governments go out of their way to create these outlaw armies (terrorists, pirates, drug cartels, etc.), in real life and in archetypal fiction. I wonder why?)

I don't think they actually give much serious thought to legalising out of fear of being seen to be soft on crime, when any fool knows the opposite to be the case.

[libspero]

The Mexicans should just legalise the drugs (I think they only grow Marijuana and probably some coke).

Then the only issue would be trafficking.. since 99% is destined for the US it would become an American problem.

If the Americans don't like it they can support their Southern neighbours by stopping gun trafficking into Mexico and sending in some help to sort out the gangs.

Job done

[1929crash]

The Mexicans should just legalise the drugs (I think they only grow Marijuana and probably some coke).

Then the only issue would be trafficking.. since 99% is destined for the US it would become an American problem.

If the Americans don't like it they can support their Southern neighbours by stopping gun trafficking into Mexico and sending in some help to sort out the gangs.

Job done

The main problem to legalising in this way is that the US has always used its influence in international forums to promote prohibition - Mexico wouldn't dare legalise.

I often wonder whether the prohibition/war on drugs is an excuse to give the CIA and other US intelligence agencies a domminat position in the drugs market.

I would of course be accused of TFH but remember Iran-Contra, for example?

[The Pale Rider]

Having had more than my fair share of hash,acid,speed,mushrooms,valium,poppers etc in the past, I see what a waste of time and potential drug taking is.

I cannot think of one community where drug taking has made a positive contribution but I can think of lots where peoples lives are made worse by it.

[libspero]

The main problem to legalising in this way is that the US has always used its influence in international forums to promote prohibition - Mexico wouldn't dare legalise.

I often wonder whether the prohibition/war on drugs is an excuse to give the CIA and other US intelligence agencies a domminat position in the drugs market.

I would of course be accused of TFH but remember Iran-Contra, for example?

Agree 100%.. The Americans would hate it, but ultimately they are part of the problem and should take a bit of responsibility IMHO.

If they don't want Mexico to legalise and take the problem to their door step, they can offer troops / support to help remove the drug dealers.

I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man.

I'm not particularly 'up' on Iran-Contra, but wasn't that a cold war thing? The Americans gave money to the Contras to overthrow the Socialists.. it just happened that the Contras made most of their money from gun-running and drug dealing. When the senate found out they were forced to stop.. so they went around congress by selling arms to Iran and giving the proceeds to the drug-running contras to fight their war for them. I think from the CIA /American point of view the drugs were an inconvenient complication rather than a good way to make money.

[1929crash]

Having had more than my fair share of hash,acid,speed,mushrooms,valium,poppers etc in the past, I see what a waste of time and potential drug taking is.

I cannot think of one community where drug taking has made a positive contribution but I can think of lots where peoples lives are made worse by it.

The argument for legalisation is not that drugs are good (though there's accumulating evidence for some medical uses) but that prohibition makes the situation far worse by creating enormous incentives to organised crime.

Nor does prohibition work.

BTW I have never tried any illegal substances or legal highs (except for alcohol)

[libspero]

Having had more than my fair share of hash,acid,speed,mushrooms,valium,poppers etc in the past, I see what a waste of time and potential drug taking is.

I cannot think of one community where drug taking has made a positive contribution but I can think of lots where peoples lives are made worse by it.

Half the people I knew at uni had taken one drug or another, I don't think many of them regret it now.

Perhaps we can legalise drugs, but just for those between the ages of 18 and 25.. then they can get it all out of their system

[Woot]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061503174_pf.html

It's time the insane war on drugs was ended. Across the globe far more people fall victim to organised drug gangs than to the prohibited substances themselves.

Natural selection?

Just playing devil's advocate.

[1929crash]

Agree 100%.. The Americans would hate it, but ultimately they are part of the problem and should take a bit of responsibility IMHO.

If they don't want Mexico to legalise and take the problem to their door step, they can offer troops / support to help remove the drug dealers.

I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man.

I'm not particularly 'up' on Iran-Contra, but wasn't that a cold war thing? The Americans gave money to the Contras to overthrow the Socialists.. it just happened that the Contras made most of their money from gun-running and drug dealing. When the senate found out they were forced to stop.. so they went around congress by selling arms to Iran and giving the proceeds to the drug-running contras to fight their war for them. I think from the CIA /American point of view the drugs were an inconvenient complication rather than a good way to make money.

The CIA made huge wads of cash in Vietnam, and as for Afghanistan, production is way up since those drug-hating killjoys, the Taliban, were removed from office.

And of course, as the Americans themselves admitted last year, the President's brother is heavily involved in the trade.

[libspero]

The CIA made huge wads of cash in Vietnam, and as for Afghanistan, production is way up since those drug-hating killjoys, the Taliban, were removed from office.

And of course, as the Americans themselves admitted last year, the President's brother is heavily involved in the trade.

Linkage ??

[1929crash]

Linkage ??

I don't have a link but cast your mind back to last autumn's "free and fair" elections in Afghanistan.

The Americans were unhappy with Hamid Karzai and were so anxious to discredit him that for several weeks, stories about Wali Karzai's involvement in the drugs trade were all over the news.

[1929crash]

Try this link:

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?vc=&p=karzai+brother+drug+trade&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-yie8

[libspero]

Try this link:

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?vc=&p=karzai+brother+drug+trade&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-yie8

I thought you were talking about Obama! Now I'm with you.

I think it probably is coincidental TBH (or at least I'll give hi the benefit of the doubt for now). It's the same in Mexco, many of the wealthy are/were drug dealers so they tended to brush shoulders with other people in influential circles.. many of the Mexican politicians had links back to drug cartels.. that was part of what made it so hard to stop over there.

It wouldn't surprise me if Karzai's brother is involved, or even if all of their family wealth came from it. That would have paid his way to a good education and could well be why the US stuck him there as president.. presumably a well educated local sympathetic to the Americans.. the fact that his brother or even his family made their money from drugs is an inconvenience I expect.